Summations Only

I have? Where? I remember a picture of a part of the ocean floor which is clearly not as flat as the strata.

There are huge lengths of the Grand Canyon walls that ARE made up of originally straight and flat strata that are still visibly only slightly off straight and flat due to changes after they were laid down.

I see no way that the supposed time periods that are assigned to various levels in those walls, and the landscapes supposed to have existed for millions of years at those very locations, could have resulted in the flat slabs of rock that now represent them, based on this typical way of interpreting them.

Yes, this is the problem, everybody keeps answering me without having a clue what I mean.

If you don't know what I mean why don't you ask a specific question since I don't know what you aren't getting. You're all just saying utter irrelevant nonsense, that's all I know.

The ocean floor is very varied with all sorts of structures in it but with huge expanses of 'prairies' - ie flatness. Escpesvially where sediments are being laid down.

You just wrecked Tangle's argument that the sea floor is flat. Thank you, saved me the trouble.

Take a mile-square section of land with lots of foliage growing on it, of the type associated with the time period of the dinosaurs. Lots of it cuz dinosaurians eat a lot. It's been going on for millions of years. No, let's just say it's only just started and has been going on for, oh, ten thousand years. In that time the foliage will have grown up and died many times over, beein buried and become compost. So the level of the land rises too, from the accumulating compost. Likewise there are lots of dinosaurian type creatures that also have been born and died in those ten thousand years, been buried and become compost and contributed to the growing height of the land. After millions of years the land has built up quite a bit and new creatures are starting to appear. The lowest level of buried things keeps getting deeper and deeper until after millions of years it hardens into rock. Is this what you are all picturing? Where's the sediment that becomes say a sandstone or a limestone in the stratigraphic column? How does such a lumpy shapeless bunch of stuff turn into a flat rock? What about all the dead things that are accumulating above it? Aren't they hardening too in their composted soil? You aren't going to get the stratigraphic column out of this sort of process. Wake up.

Shrimp - (100-300 million years)

UNDERWHELMING evidence to the minds of many intelligent people, Jar, I am afraid, but as evolutionist laymen, you obviously are biased.

This is a begging-the-question fallacy because it presumes the former arguments given by YECs were actually strawman arguments, which you didn't prove. "this evolutionist has just punched me, this is the worst beating anyone has had from this evolutionist since he beat up his wife."Problem: there is no evidence he beat up his wife.

This is the most bizarre begging-the-question fallacy I've ever seen concocted by an evolutionist.
See how that is rhetorical? It implies creationist and creationists alone, are the ones coming up with strawman fallacies. Let me assure you as a person that scores very highly on critical thinking and logic tests, there is certainly a lot of strawman fallacies coming from your side, and I witness them weekly.

I read a hypothesized model of how long ages occurred. What evolutionists SAY occurred over long ages, and what would actually occur had those long ages existed, are two different things, so Faith's attempt to speculate on a possible, plausible situation for long ages, is as good or as bad as any other speculation about how it would occur given an alleged long-age history.

There are mammals pushed back of course, that they have found in dinosaurs bellies, they have found grass fairly recently too. The point is, when we do find earlier forms than previously argued, they are identical, even though it was claimed they had not evolved, and way before the clade with all of the ancestors from which they would have derived.

In what way precisely? The greater a claim is the greater the evidence has to be. Evolutionists claim evolution invented everything, ...

... but it cannot show any new design in operational science.

If a man claimed to be superman but could not demonstrate ANY ability to perform like superman, would you believe his claim if he provided strong, indirect evidence?

Oh I got what you meant I just think it's a red-herring not worth chasing. The fact is, if there are kinds of organism, such as bats, and they show no evolution even their earliest form, when we might expect to find their ancestors if the fossils are an evolutionary history, then this isn't good evidence of macro evolution if we find identical kinds that look the same today.

Just picking out shrimp, and using observer bias to ignore all of the specific ones on that list, doesn't change the fact that some have simply remained unchanged, and don't show any intermediates for how they allegedly evolved.

But one is not enough, ...

... what about the Cambrian? An explosion indeed, extinct forms yes, but where is their evolution? It is non-existent. Just admit it, the fossil record supports the creationist position, we would expect to find bats without any history of evolution because they were created to be bats.

You can deny it if you want, I myself as a student of logical, cannot ignore sound deductive reason.

It simply follows this is the evidence expected from created kinds, not evolution, or show me the intermediates to all of them.

Acting as one voice of agreement. it's a nodding-forum where you all agree with each other that you are all correct. Lol.

Generalisation though isn't it?

A more accurate statement is that a portion of YECs don't understand science ...

... but then the same can be said of evolutionists, I know many who are appallingly ignorant online.

But a lot of the speculations about how things happened over long eons, aren't solid science, and causes and argued causes actually change, even within science.

Yes I was addressing a literal landscape, by choosing the Permian and Triassic for the example. I wasn't confusing anything, I intented to choose LAND scapes.

So you introduce a sea transgression into the scenario. But surely that WOULD kill off ALL the creatures.

And that in fact is what you go on to say:(snip)OK, so there is no evolution either, life no longer exists, it's all gone, eroded away or buried, eventually it ends up in the stratigraphic column presumably, though how is still a mystery. Any way I've tried to sort it out everything has to die, and you just added another way.

Also, where are the topographic features in the stratigraphic column that you say remain after the transgression.

All the strata I've seen in, say, the Grand Staircase area where we find the Triassic, is flat flat flat.

The depth required to lithify the sediment is quite variable depending on the local conditions and the type of sediment; but there are places today (ie. Arizona) where the bedrock is almost 5 km deep. The sand at the bottom of the Sonoran desert is more than enough pressure to turn to rock - all that's needed is enough time for the sediment to crystallise. And there are no 'different types of sediment' necessary in this case - there's just a shitload of sand; some of which will certainly be sandstone in the next few hundred thousand years.There is no disappearance - the stuff at the bottom is lithifying slowly as we speak; while animals and plants still carry on as normal at the surface.

Mud piles on top of mud. This compresses the mud underneath it. This squeezes the water out. As more mud settles on the top, the more pressure compresses the lower mud, the less water it holds as the gaps where the water sits shrink. Eventually sufficient water is expelled to 'cement' the mud into mudrock.